I think part of the problem with the literature that tackles this subject, on both sides, is the presumption that the other side consists of idiots and/or people who intentionally ignore or misrepresent scripture. It just kills people that others can honestly come to a different conclusion.
So Biblical Unitarians make it seem like Trinitarians claim Jesus Christ is The Father, while Biblical Trinitarians ;)--> make it seem like Unitarians don't appreciate the lordship of Jesus Christ.
Read Buzzard if you'd like, but I suspect you'll find the book insulting on a number of levels. I've read it and it makes compelling arguments, but even I got tired of the put-downs after only a few pages.
Are administrations/dispensations that critical to you?
This a serious question as I am trying ascertain your reference points.
Def -- that was an honest question, and deserves an honest answer. :)-->
In one word, YES.
I don't mean to castigte your beliefs, but give it an honest thought. Things are not the way they originally were. Things have changed.
You want to hear something I am dealing with? Hearing Zixar and some of these other "astronomical" folks speak of comets, and stars, etc., have really got me wondering about what they are like now, because they change as well. And what I am hearing is, we are seeing them as they used to be (given the light year factor), and not as they are as we see them tonight.
And that humbles me greatly. When I realize I am seeing something that is already past and gone, I have to think -- "Who am I?"
The Administrations are (somewhat) in the same vein to me, yet I see that they are not as elusive (time-wise) as the constellations are.
If the Word declares them to be a relevant factor "in my time", then there is no "light year factor" involved, and they (Administrations), are a present reality. (To me, at least).
I honestly see the beginning of the "church" as happening on the day of Pentecost there in Acts 2. It was a totally unique beginning of an entity (previously) unknown to mankind. And I happen to believe it will have just as an "unique" ending on the day of the Rapture.
Things were set up by God in the OT, yet were changed in the NT, and I, for one, would like to recognize that.
But that is me, and that is the "point of reference", that I am working from! :)-->
I know going into dispensationalism is a strong veer off the topic, but it came up, and what's a bit of 'veerage' amongst friends? (BTW I much prefertheterm 'dispensations'to 'administrations', a usage uniquely Wierwillian).
dmiller, I doubt many would dispute that the Church began on Pentecost, but I would encourage you to consider how much is to be learned by looking for and seeing the unity of God's plan from the beginning.The Church was no sudden appearance of something mysterious & unrelated to what preceeded. It is the natural outworking and partial fulfillment of the covenants God made with Abraham and promises made to Israel. There is so much written in the OT concerning the Church it is mind-boggling. To artificially segment the sweep of God's history is to lose much of the richness of texts that greatly illuminate the unity of God's plan and how it is being outworked today. In that light I consider the Wierwillian take on 'administrations' extreme tunnel vision.
Besides the fact that only vpw used the word administration, the problem with his definitions of dispensations is that it negates the words of Christ spoken in the Gospels and elevates Paul above Christ in authority.
Remember how docvic used to teach the Gospels were OT? This is not true. The gospels were written in the NT period to new testament audience.
And the OT is filled with prophecies about the Messiah fulfilled in the NT.
And what about grace, was it only for the NT?
Look at god's mercy and grace shown to people throughout the OT.
Despite our indoctrination, it isn't biblically accurate to say the Church began on the Day of Pentecost.
The Church consists of the believing remnant of Israel (Romans 11:5) under the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (II Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:6-13), with believing Gentiles grafted in (Romans 11:17) on the same basis as believing Isreal (Ephesians 3:6), by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8). The spirit first shed forth on the Day of Pentecost is the earnest of the spirit of resurrection promised to Israel in Ezekiel 37. Pentecost was not the beginning of ANY wholely new thing.
John N. Darby invented dispensationalism as we know it in the early- to mid-1800s. He invented dispensationalism to support his contention that God was forming two separate groups of people to inhabit eternity: Israel, a physical people to inhabit a physical earth; and the Church, a spiritual people to inhabit a spiritual heaven.
A basic premise of dispensationalism is that the Church began on the Day of Pentecost. The scriptures are "rightly divided" to tell us that the Church began on the Day of Pentecost. VOILA! The BIBLE tells us that the Church began on the Day of Pentecost.
But it doesn't really say that.
Darby used his dispensationalism to divide the Word of God into meaning-tight compartments, enabling him to make it say whatever he wanted it to say. Wierwille did the same thing.
The division of the Word of God into dispensations is just as man-made as its division into chapters and verses, and just as void of authority for interpretation.
dmiller: If you think about it, every single place you look, you're looking back in time because light takes time to travel to your eye.
You never see the Moon as it is, but as it was one and a half seconds ago.
The Sun could explode, but we wouldn't know it for eight minutes and twenty seconds.
950 years ago, people observed a brilliant new star suddenly appearing in the contellation of Taurus. It's referred to as the Supernova of 1054, and we can still see its remnant today as M1, the Crab Nebula. However, the Crab Nebula is 6,300 light years away, meaning the star actually exploded way back in 5245 BC. (so much for the 4004 BC Creation theory...)
In physics, it's called the observer's time-cone. The cone is narrow at our eye, but most in focus. The farther we look back, the wider the cone gets, so the more we can see, but the more out of date it becomes. It's like being strapped to the caboose of a train.
That's why it's difficult to truly understand what happened back then, even though we have the Bible as a record. We have an Israel today, but it's hardly the same as the Israel of two thousand years ago.
Sorry I haven't answered sooner. Just saw these posts tonight.
quote: I know going into dispensationalism is a strong veer off the topic, but it came up, and what's a bit of 'veerage' amongst friends? (BTW I much prefer the term 'dispensations'to 'administrations', a usage uniquely Wierwillian).
So do I Evan. but somehow "administration " (while meaning the same thing, though Wierwillian) connotes more sense to me, thus my usage of it.
quote: The Church was no sudden appearance of something mysterious & unrelated to what preceeded. It is the natural outworking and partial fulfillment of the covenants God made with Abraham and promises made to Israel. There is so much written in the OT concerning the Church it is mind-boggling.
I don't see the "church" in the OT, like I do Isreal. Wern't the Isrealites considered "family", "chosen" etc., versus a "church"? --> While some folks had "spirit on them", it was greatly different from having "spirit in them" - which is the deciding factor (imho) of the "church" which is now also "family". That is Wierwillian too, but it certainly makes sense given Psalm 51:11. I see God's promises all over the OT -- TO ISREAL -- but nowhere mentioning a church.
And --- concerning "dispensationalism" vs. the title of this thread, I don't really see it as a de-rail, because Jesus Christ did what was needed for all of us (mankind), and by doing so, God was able to initiate what is called the "secret" -- vpw"s word for it was "the mystery" -- into being.
And it was something new. And it was also something Jesus Christ never knew anything about until it was reavealed to Him. Who gave the gift of holy spirit there in Acts? It was given by Jesus Christ. Delegated to give (and take) powers, favours, etc., just like Joseph was given the same privilidges back when Pharoah made him "ruler" of the land.
If Jesus was God, and the trinity intact, He (Jesus) would have known about it, and that prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane in Luke 22 would have meant nothing, (if he were God) "Not my will, but Yours".
To whom was he praying? Himself? Hardly. And what was the Will of God? Something not yet revealed that would initiate a new "entity" into the mix of Gentile, and Jew. Jesus did not know of this at that time, but He is the one who distributed the "gift", and made the church possible because of His accomplishments.
By doing so, I can only guess that He was proud and pleased to usher in a whole new "era", that was never mentioned or talked about in the OT.
quote: Besides the fact that only vpw used the word administration, the problem with his definitions of dispensations is that it negates the words of Christ spoken in the Gospels and elevates Paul above Christ in authority.
Def -- I am in no way "preaching" that Paul is superior to Jesus. Galatians 1:11-12 are what I see as Paul telling all that what he is preaching was revealed to him by Jesus Christ.
If he (Paul) is merely "repeating" a message, he is not the more important person, the Giver of the "message" is.
In essence, Paul was not "tooting his own horn", and far be it from me to "toot" it for him! :)-->
quote: Remember how docvic used to teach the Gospels were OT? This is not true. The gospels were written in the NT period to new testament audience.
Yes they were written to a NT audience, but what did they relate?? They showed all sacrifice required completed, all atonement taken care of, "Mission Accomplished" to the world.
But what they related, was a completion of things started, and never finished.
I never served in Viet-Nam, but let's use that as an example. I was up for the draft, I never got called, and suddenly I hear in the "print", that the war is over.
I am dealing with two time periods here. One where I was eligible for the draft, and be ready to be "called to duty", and also with "the war is over". I am the same person, yet I am dealing with two totally different "reports".
Just because I happened to be "eligible" to read both "written posts" about the state of the war, which one do I believe? I could go with the previous "posts", and continue to think I was needed over there, or -- I could go with the "new" posts saying I did not have to.
Gospels are the same way (imho) -- They tell the story of how something is over, and new times are coming. Though they were written at a time where folks (also) were "in between" time frames, doesn't mean that they have to read them in the "old" context, but rather can accept the new.
quote: dmiller: If you think about it, every single place you look, you're looking back in time because light takes time to travel to your eye.
You never see the Moon as it is, but as it was one and a half seconds ago.
The Sun could explode, but we wouldn't know it for eight minutes and twenty seconds.
Zix -- I love all your explanations of that which is celestial. They make sense, and you know what you are talking about. You make my point when I say I am humbled that I am privilidged to see them, even if it is an "after-thought" -- so to speak.
Am not sure Isreal can be equated with that, but you are right -- they are not the same Isreal now, as they were then.
Now they have Uzi's and such. Are they still trusting in the "Arm Of The Lord?"
quote: John N. Darby invented dispensationalism as we know it in the early- to mid-1800s. He invented dispensationalism to support his contention that God was forming two separate groups of people to inhabit eternity: Israel, a physical people to inhabit a physical earth; and the Church, a spiritual people to inhabit a spiritual heaven.
Steve -- personally, I think God invented dispensationalism when he booted Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. Things changed, and He was forced to deal with it. :(-->
Reguardless -- I will be looking up the verses you mentioned. Thanks for citing them!!
(always willing to check out the "other side");)-->
"If Jesus was God, and the trinity intact, He (Jesus) would have known about it, and that prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane in Luke 22 would have meant nothing, (if he were God) "Not my will, but Yours"."
This is a classic straw man because it misrepresents trinitarian belief, then argues against that misrepresented belief. No need to detail what trinitarians believe about that passage, but suffice to say, it is entirely consistent with their belief system.
I'll just pick out a few problems on "administrations". The distinction between the "gift of holy spirit" (another unique and awkward Wierwillism) *upon and *in is artificial and easily debunked. Clearly something happened when Jesus shed forth the Holy Spirit, but Wierwille's explanation is convoluted and full of holes.
Separating the Gospels from direct application to the Christian walk IS a real problem with Wierwillian dispensationalism. When Paul (or whoever the author of Hebrews) enjoined folks to be "looking unto jesus" he was pointing directly to the gospels. There is no higher call than the Sermon on the Mount. But its humble, otherworldly message has no place in the lexicon of 'sonship rights", so why not neatly excise it with a quick doctrinal sleight of hand? That's what "administrations" accomplishes, IMO. it may impart a "feeling" of greater understanding, but it is at a very dear cost: the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
While I'm on a roll, he he, lemme "ax" you this, dm: In your lexicon of beliefs, do you hold that Israel is 'held in abeyance' during the current 'administration'?
Steve -- personally, I think God invented dispensationalism when he booted Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. Things changed, and He was forced to deal with it. :(-->
Dmiller- Do you God was surprised that Adam and eve sinned? Do you believe God is sovereign and ominiscient?
quote:Gospels are the same way (imho) -- They tell the story of how something is over, and new times are coming. Though they were written at a time where folks (also) were "in between" time frames, doesn't mean that they have to read them in the "old" context, but rather can accept the new.
I mis-stated that. Mea Culpa. :(--> The Gospels are indeed an accurate record of what happened, and by considering them to be in the OT doesn't neccesarily mean the same as "tossing them out" as "for our learning only".
I agree about the Sermon on the Mount, Evan. If the entire Bible consisted of nothing but that, it would still be worthwhile. And unlike vp, I can, and do pray the Lord's prayer -- it is as good and profitable today as it was then, despite what we were taught in twi.
The NT has very little to do with civil law. Why? Because civil law as found in the OT is still valid, and applicable. By considering the Gospels to be OT, I am not trying to be-little them. I consider them to be an integral part of Christianity -- worthy of reading, learning, and following.
quote: While I'm on a roll, he he, lemme "ax" you this, dm: In your lexicon of beliefs, do you hold that Israel is 'held in abeyance' during the current 'administration'?
:)--> Good question! I have to head off to work now. Let me think that one over.
quote: Dmiller- Do you God was surprised that Adam and eve sinned? Do you believe God is sovereign and ominiscient?
And another good question. This is something I've been looking at recently, Def. Honestly -- I am not sure what I think of this one. Right now the answer is no, and yes to the above.
Def -- thanks. I honestly am willing to look at "both sides" of an opinion. The soveriegnity (sp??) of God, and "micro-management" vs. free will is something new to me, and while I have several books on the subject, I am still looking at it, and trying to make a decision.
I can see valid reasons on both sides, but as yet, I am not willing to commit to either.
I know this is not main-stream thought, and it is taught in "mega-churches", where membership numbers in the thousands, so it is now being "touted" as right, correct, or whatever -- but I have never gone with "numbers", and just because they say so, doesn't mean it is right.
What is postulated holds merit, but so does the "traditional" teaching. And as of yet, I'm not sure which way to turn. And as far as "mega-churches" go----
Was listening to the Rich Mullin's CD of "the Jesus record", and noticed on the CD liner notes that there were only 4 folks in attendance at the service held. MY kind of church! Numbers mean nothing to the Lord, when he can get them any time He wants from something as inanimate as stones.
So ---- My questions, posts, etc., here are just that. Thank you Def, Evan, etc, for replying. Sure -- I have opinions, but they are still being worked on, and am open to suggestions, criticism, whatever. :)-->
There is a little country church right near an artesian well where I go to get water from. It has a graveyard by it (presumably former members), and is just off I-35 South from Duluth -- 15 miles from my house. The cross on top of it (the church) is lit at night, and seems to be a beacon to travelers. Given the graveyard right next to the church, and the free-way right there too, I see folks as "coming and going".
It is a small building, and though it is a Lutheran church, I have thought a lot about going there to check out the services.
Am not fond of traditional "main-stream" teaching, but you know what? If the numbers in attendance were nothing more than "little old ladies, and a sea of "blue hair", that would be good enough for me.
I've come a long way from twi, but I still have questions. I could never ask them there, but--- they might afford me the fellowship that I might have lacked , and looked for.
added note -- nor did I mean to de-rail this thread, by what I thought to share.
The trinity has met it's match by those of us who can either accept, or are willing to accept, changes in our lives (and accept "main-stream Christianity") on our terms
dmiller, being able to see both sides of the sovereignty/free will issue without being able to decide on either may be the ultimate truth. It is simply a matter of educating yourself on both sides. I think both are true, to a point, and partially express the tension between flesh and spirit...God's perspective and man's.
The same could be said of trinitarian vs. one-i-tarian.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
44
33
28
45
Popular Days
Feb 7
41
Feb 21
24
Feb 9
21
Feb 10
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 44 posts
Tzaia 33 posts
Steve Lortz 28 posts
dmiller 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 7 2005
41 posts
Feb 21 2005
24 posts
Feb 9 2005
21 posts
Feb 10 2005
14 posts
def59
To be honest
I have started reading some of Buzzard's work Raf, just so we have a common point of reference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think part of the problem with the literature that tackles this subject, on both sides, is the presumption that the other side consists of idiots and/or people who intentionally ignore or misrepresent scripture. It just kills people that others can honestly come to a different conclusion.
So Biblical Unitarians make it seem like Trinitarians claim Jesus Christ is The Father, while Biblical Trinitarians
;)--> make it seem like Unitarians don't appreciate the lordship of Jesus Christ.
Read Buzzard if you'd like, but I suspect you'll find the book insulting on a number of levels. I've read it and it makes compelling arguments, but even I got tired of the put-downs after only a few pages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
OK
How do you base your pov?
Because I get tired of the same insults as well.
I would rather find out where we agree and then see why we differ than to go for the throat (carpe jugulum) right off the bat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Def -- that was an honest question, and deserves an honest answer.
:)-->
In one word, YES.
I don't mean to castigte your beliefs, but give it an honest thought. Things are not the way they originally were. Things have changed.
You want to hear something I am dealing with? Hearing Zixar and some of these other "astronomical" folks speak of comets, and stars, etc., have really got me wondering about what they are like now, because they change as well. And what I am hearing is, we are seeing them as they used to be (given the light year factor), and not as they are as we see them tonight.
And that humbles me greatly. When I realize I am seeing something that is already past and gone, I have to think -- "Who am I?"
The Administrations are (somewhat) in the same vein to me, yet I see that they are not as elusive (time-wise) as the constellations are.
If the Word declares them to be a relevant factor "in my time", then there is no "light year factor" involved, and they (Administrations), are a present reality. (To me, at least).
I honestly see the beginning of the "church" as happening on the day of Pentecost there in Acts 2. It was a totally unique beginning of an entity (previously) unknown to mankind. And I happen to believe it will have just as an "unique" ending on the day of the Rapture.
Things were set up by God in the OT, yet were changed in the NT, and I, for one, would like to recognize that.
But that is me, and that is the "point of reference", that I am working from!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I know going into dispensationalism is a strong veer off the topic, but it came up, and what's a bit of 'veerage' amongst friends? (BTW I much prefertheterm 'dispensations'to 'administrations', a usage uniquely Wierwillian).
dmiller, I doubt many would dispute that the Church began on Pentecost, but I would encourage you to consider how much is to be learned by looking for and seeing the unity of God's plan from the beginning.The Church was no sudden appearance of something mysterious & unrelated to what preceeded. It is the natural outworking and partial fulfillment of the covenants God made with Abraham and promises made to Israel. There is so much written in the OT concerning the Church it is mind-boggling. To artificially segment the sweep of God's history is to lose much of the richness of texts that greatly illuminate the unity of God's plan and how it is being outworked today. In that light I consider the Wierwillian take on 'administrations' extreme tunnel vision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Dmiller
Besides the fact that only vpw used the word administration, the problem with his definitions of dispensations is that it negates the words of Christ spoken in the Gospels and elevates Paul above Christ in authority.
Remember how docvic used to teach the Gospels were OT? This is not true. The gospels were written in the NT period to new testament audience.
And the OT is filled with prophecies about the Messiah fulfilled in the NT.
And what about grace, was it only for the NT?
Look at god's mercy and grace shown to people throughout the OT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Despite our indoctrination, it isn't biblically accurate to say the Church began on the Day of Pentecost.
The Church consists of the believing remnant of Israel (Romans 11:5) under the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (II Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:6-13), with believing Gentiles grafted in (Romans 11:17) on the same basis as believing Isreal (Ephesians 3:6), by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8). The spirit first shed forth on the Day of Pentecost is the earnest of the spirit of resurrection promised to Israel in Ezekiel 37. Pentecost was not the beginning of ANY wholely new thing.
John N. Darby invented dispensationalism as we know it in the early- to mid-1800s. He invented dispensationalism to support his contention that God was forming two separate groups of people to inhabit eternity: Israel, a physical people to inhabit a physical earth; and the Church, a spiritual people to inhabit a spiritual heaven.
A basic premise of dispensationalism is that the Church began on the Day of Pentecost. The scriptures are "rightly divided" to tell us that the Church began on the Day of Pentecost. VOILA! The BIBLE tells us that the Church began on the Day of Pentecost.
But it doesn't really say that.
Darby used his dispensationalism to divide the Word of God into meaning-tight compartments, enabling him to make it say whatever he wanted it to say. Wierwille did the same thing.
The division of the Word of God into dispensations is just as man-made as its division into chapters and verses, and just as void of authority for interpretation.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
dmiller: If you think about it, every single place you look, you're looking back in time because light takes time to travel to your eye.
You never see the Moon as it is, but as it was one and a half seconds ago.
The Sun could explode, but we wouldn't know it for eight minutes and twenty seconds.
950 years ago, people observed a brilliant new star suddenly appearing in the contellation of Taurus. It's referred to as the Supernova of 1054, and we can still see its remnant today as M1, the Crab Nebula. However, the Crab Nebula is 6,300 light years away, meaning the star actually exploded way back in 5245 BC. (so much for the 4004 BC Creation theory...)
In physics, it's called the observer's time-cone. The cone is narrow at our eye, but most in focus. The farther we look back, the wider the cone gets, so the more we can see, but the more out of date it becomes. It's like being strapped to the caboose of a train.
That's why it's difficult to truly understand what happened back then, even though we have the Bible as a record. We have an Israel today, but it's hardly the same as the Israel of two thousand years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Sorry I haven't answered sooner. Just saw these posts tonight.
So do I Evan. but somehow "administration " (while meaning the same thing, though Wierwillian) connotes more sense to me, thus my usage of it.
I don't see the "church" in the OT, like I do Isreal. Wern't the Isrealites considered "family", "chosen" etc., versus a "church"?
--> While some folks had "spirit on them", it was greatly different from having "spirit in them" - which is the deciding factor (imho) of the "church" which is now also "family". That is Wierwillian too, but it certainly makes sense given Psalm 51:11. I see God's promises all over the OT -- TO ISREAL -- but nowhere mentioning a church.
And --- concerning "dispensationalism" vs. the title of this thread, I don't really see it as a de-rail, because Jesus Christ did what was needed for all of us (mankind), and by doing so, God was able to initiate what is called the "secret" -- vpw"s word for it was "the mystery" -- into being.
And it was something new. And it was also something Jesus Christ never knew anything about until it was reavealed to Him. Who gave the gift of holy spirit there in Acts? It was given by Jesus Christ. Delegated to give (and take) powers, favours, etc., just like Joseph was given the same privilidges back when Pharoah made him "ruler" of the land.
If Jesus was God, and the trinity intact, He (Jesus) would have known about it, and that prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane in Luke 22 would have meant nothing, (if he were God) "Not my will, but Yours".
To whom was he praying? Himself? Hardly. And what was the Will of God? Something not yet revealed that would initiate a new "entity" into the mix of Gentile, and Jew. Jesus did not know of this at that time, but He is the one who distributed the "gift", and made the church possible because of His accomplishments.
By doing so, I can only guess that He was proud and pleased to usher in a whole new "era", that was never mentioned or talked about in the OT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Def -- I am in no way "preaching" that Paul is superior to Jesus. Galatians 1:11-12 are what I see as Paul telling all that what he is preaching was revealed to him by Jesus Christ.
If he (Paul) is merely "repeating" a message, he is not the more important person, the Giver of the "message" is.
In essence, Paul was not "tooting his own horn", and far be it from me to "toot" it for him!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yes they were written to a NT audience, but what did they relate?? They showed all sacrifice required completed, all atonement taken care of, "Mission Accomplished" to the world.
But what they related, was a completion of things started, and never finished.
I never served in Viet-Nam, but let's use that as an example. I was up for the draft, I never got called, and suddenly I hear in the "print", that the war is over.
I am dealing with two time periods here. One where I was eligible for the draft, and be ready to be "called to duty", and also with "the war is over". I am the same person, yet I am dealing with two totally different "reports".
Just because I happened to be "eligible" to read both "written posts" about the state of the war, which one do I believe? I could go with the previous "posts", and continue to think I was needed over there, or -- I could go with the "new" posts saying I did not have to.
Gospels are the same way (imho) -- They tell the story of how something is over, and new times are coming. Though they were written at a time where folks (also) were "in between" time frames, doesn't mean that they have to read them in the "old" context, but rather can accept the new.
Same as us.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Zix -- I love all your explanations of that which is celestial. They make sense, and you know what you are talking about. You make my point when I say I am humbled that I am privilidged to see them, even if it is an "after-thought" -- so to speak.
Am not sure Isreal can be equated with that, but you are right -- they are not the same Isreal now, as they were then.
Now they have Uzi's and such. Are they still trusting in the "Arm Of The Lord?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Steve -- personally, I think God invented dispensationalism when he booted Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. Things changed, and He was forced to deal with it.
:(-->
Reguardless -- I will be looking up the verses you mentioned. Thanks for citing them!!
(always willing to check out the "other side")
;)--> 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
"If Jesus was God, and the trinity intact, He (Jesus) would have known about it, and that prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane in Luke 22 would have meant nothing, (if he were God) "Not my will, but Yours"."
This is a classic straw man because it misrepresents trinitarian belief, then argues against that misrepresented belief. No need to detail what trinitarians believe about that passage, but suffice to say, it is entirely consistent with their belief system.
I'll just pick out a few problems on "administrations". The distinction between the "gift of holy spirit" (another unique and awkward Wierwillism) *upon and *in is artificial and easily debunked. Clearly something happened when Jesus shed forth the Holy Spirit, but Wierwille's explanation is convoluted and full of holes.
Separating the Gospels from direct application to the Christian walk IS a real problem with Wierwillian dispensationalism. When Paul (or whoever the author of Hebrews) enjoined folks to be "looking unto jesus" he was pointing directly to the gospels. There is no higher call than the Sermon on the Mount. But its humble, otherworldly message has no place in the lexicon of 'sonship rights", so why not neatly excise it with a quick doctrinal sleight of hand? That's what "administrations" accomplishes, IMO. it may impart a "feeling" of greater understanding, but it is at a very dear cost: the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
While I'm on a roll, he he, lemme "ax" you this, dm: In your lexicon of beliefs, do you hold that Israel is 'held in abeyance' during the current 'administration'?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Steve -- personally, I think God invented dispensationalism when he booted Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. Things changed, and He was forced to deal with it.
:(-->
Dmiller- Do you God was surprised that Adam and eve sinned? Do you believe God is sovereign and ominiscient?
If not, I'd like to see your verses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Dmiller
It is generally accepted that Matthew was written to a largely Jewish audience
Mark to a Greek
Luke for an accurate news account
John to cement the true identity of Jesus from agents of heresy.
Take a good look at Church history, and not way-think and you may find a good story.
It will take courage to face other thoughts, we we were taught (falsely I believe) that were born of seed boys.
I would recommend "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. This goes for anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I mis-stated that. Mea Culpa.
:(--> The Gospels are indeed an accurate record of what happened, and by considering them to be in the OT doesn't neccesarily mean the same as "tossing them out" as "for our learning only".
I agree about the Sermon on the Mount, Evan. If the entire Bible consisted of nothing but that, it would still be worthwhile. And unlike vp, I can, and do pray the Lord's prayer -- it is as good and profitable today as it was then, despite what we were taught in twi.
The NT has very little to do with civil law. Why? Because civil law as found in the OT is still valid, and applicable. By considering the Gospels to be OT, I am not trying to be-little them. I consider them to be an integral part of Christianity -- worthy of reading, learning, and following.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And another good question. This is something I've been looking at recently, Def. Honestly -- I am not sure what I think of this one. Right now the answer is no, and yes to the above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Bro,
I know how you feel and what you are going through. Be patient, God will take care of you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Def -- thanks. I honestly am willing to look at "both sides" of an opinion. The soveriegnity (sp??) of God, and "micro-management" vs. free will is something new to me, and while I have several books on the subject, I am still looking at it, and trying to make a decision.
I can see valid reasons on both sides, but as yet, I am not willing to commit to either.
I know this is not main-stream thought, and it is taught in "mega-churches", where membership numbers in the thousands, so it is now being "touted" as right, correct, or whatever -- but I have never gone with "numbers", and just because they say so, doesn't mean it is right.
What is postulated holds merit, but so does the "traditional" teaching. And as of yet, I'm not sure which way to turn. And as far as "mega-churches" go----
Was listening to the Rich Mullin's CD of "the Jesus record", and noticed on the CD liner notes that there were only 4 folks in attendance at the service held. MY kind of church! Numbers mean nothing to the Lord, when he can get them any time He wants from something as inanimate as stones.
So ---- My questions, posts, etc., here are just that. Thank you Def, Evan, etc, for replying. Sure -- I have opinions, but they are still being worked on, and am open to suggestions, criticism, whatever.
:)-->
There is a little country church right near an artesian well where I go to get water from. It has a graveyard by it (presumably former members), and is just off I-35 South from Duluth -- 15 miles from my house. The cross on top of it (the church) is lit at night, and seems to be a beacon to travelers. Given the graveyard right next to the church, and the free-way right there too, I see folks as "coming and going".
It is a small building, and though it is a Lutheran church, I have thought a lot about going there to check out the services.
Am not fond of traditional "main-stream" teaching, but you know what? If the numbers in attendance were nothing more than "little old ladies, and a sea of "blue hair", that would be good enough for me.
I've come a long way from twi, but I still have questions. I could never ask them there, but--- they might afford me the fellowship that I might have lacked , and looked for.
Who knows?
Folks are Folks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
added note -- nor did I mean to de-rail this thread, by what I thought to share.
The trinity has met it's match by those of us who can either accept, or are willing to accept, changes in our lives (and accept "main-stream Christianity") on our terms
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
dmiller, being able to see both sides of the sovereignty/free will issue without being able to decide on either may be the ultimate truth. It is simply a matter of educating yourself on both sides. I think both are true, to a point, and partially express the tension between flesh and spirit...God's perspective and man's.
The same could be said of trinitarian vs. one-i-tarian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.